DECISION

 

7-Eleven, Inc. v. QiuSheng Shao / ShaoQiuSheng

Claim Number: FA2510002180804

 

PARTIES

Complainant is 7-Eleven, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by David J. Steele of Tucker Ellis, LLP, California, USA. Respondent is QiuSheng Shao / ShaoQiuSheng ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <7eleven-tw.store>, registered with Bizcn.Com, Inc.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on October 3, 2025; Forum received payment on October 3, 2025.

 

On October 9, 2025, Bizcn.Com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <7eleven-tw.store> domain name is registered with Bizcn.Com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Bizcn.Com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Bizcn.Com, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

 

On October 14, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 3, 2025 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@7eleven-tw.store. Also on October 14, 2025, the Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.

 

Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default in Chinese and English.

 

On November 4, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDING

According to the Registrar, the registration agreement for the domain name is written in Chinese.  Rule 11(a) provides that the language of the proceedings is the language of the registration agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the case.  In that regard, Rules 10 provides:

 

General Powers of the Panel

(a) The Panel shall conduct the administrative proceeding in such manner as it considers appropriate in accordance with the Policy and these Rules.

(b) In all cases, the Panel shall ensure that the Parties are treated with equality and that each Party is given a fair opportunity to present its case.

(c) The Panel shall ensure that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition. It may, at the request of a Party or on its own motion, extend, in exceptional cases, a period of time fixed by these Rules or by the Panel.

(d) The Panel shall determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of the evidence.

 

Complainant filed the Complaint in English but has petitioned the Panel to accept the Complaint and adopt English as the language of the proceeding because it alleges that Respondent is conversant in the English language. In support thereof, Complainant argues that the domain name:

 

·       incorporates the English word "Eleven," and appends "tw" for the country Taiwan;

·       is a derivation of Complainant's <7-11.com.tw> domain name, which it uses for its Taiwanese website;

·       resolves to a website which prominently uses Complainant's 7-Eleven trademark; and

·       uses a generic top-level domain ("gTLD") comprising an English word (i.e., ".store").

 

The resolving website is written entirely in Chinese. The evidence that Respondent is competent is English is vanishingly thin, but the Panel recognises that the bar has been set quite low in the past in relation to this requirement and finds, on balance, that procedural fairness favours Complainant. There has been no Response. There has been no communication from Respondent objecting that it could not read or understand the Complaint. As discussed hereunder, Respondent appears to have no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name and the reasonable inference is that the domain name was registered in bad faith and then used in bad faith. The Panel finds that in the circumstances it is appropriate for these proceedings to continue in the English language.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant asserts trademark rights in 7-ELEVEN. Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark.

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Further, Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

 

In particular, Complainant states that the disputed domain name previously resolved to a webpage that prominently displayed Complainant's trademark and existed only to support a fraudulent phishing scheme.

 

B.       Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The factual findings pertinent to the decision in this case are that:

1.       Complainant carries on an international retail business using the 7-ELEVEN mark;

2.       Complainant is the owner of, inter alia, United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") Reg. No. 896,654, registered on August 11, 1970, for the mark, 7-ELEVEN;

3.       the disputed domain name was registered on November 8, 2024, using a privacy service to shield the name of Respondent; and

4.       the domain name is currently inactive but previously resolved to website that used Complainant's trademark and solicited banking information from Internet users.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."

 

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

 

(1)       the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(2)       Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(3)       the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules.  

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry—a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.

 

Paragraph 4(a)(i) does not distinguish between registered and unregistered trademark rights (see, for example, Microsoft Corporation v. Story Remix / Inofficial, FA 1734934 (Forum July 10, 2017)). A trademark registered with a national authority is evidence of trademark rights (see, for example, Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. phix, FA 174052 (Forum Sept. 25, 2003)).  Complainant provides evidence of its registration of 7-ELEVEN with the USPTO, a national trademark authority, and so the Panel finds proof of trademark rights.

 

For the purposes of comparison of the trademark and domain name, the gTLD, ".store" can be disregarded (see, for example, Am. Int'l Group, Inc. v. Domain Admin. Ltd., FA 1106369 (Forum Dec. 31, 2007)). The domain name then differs from the trademark by deletion of the hyphenation from the trademark, and addition of, "tw" (the country name abbreviation for Taiwan), to the trademark. The Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark (see, for example, Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.")

 

The Panel therefore finds that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy are satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy:

 

(i)                      before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

 

(ii)                      you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

 

(iii)                      you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

 

Complainant need only make out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, after which the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating those rights or interests (see, for example, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000‑0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000)).

 

There is no evidence that Respondent has any trademark rights of its own. The name of the domain name owner, QiuSheng Shao, does not carry any suggestion that Respondent might be commonly known by the domain name.

 

Complainant states that the domain name is not currently in use but previously hosted a website that prominently displayed Complainant's trademark and purported to provide a commercial program for potential franchisees, including a banking authorization page that solicits Internet users' personal information. In support thereof, the Complaint states included "a machine translation of a portion of the website into English".

 

The Panel's observation is that the corresponding Exhibit does not provide an English language translation showing any such program. However, what is clear is that the site uses the trademark and appeared, as claimed, to solicit banking details of interested persons. The Panel accepts Complainant's submission that there is no relationship between the Parties and that Respondent has no authorisation to use the trademark, and accordingly makes the reasonable inference that the resolving website attempted to phish for sensitive personal and financial information. Such use is clearly not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non-commercial or fair use under the Policy (see, for example, Am. Int'l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) finding that the respondent attempts to pass itself off as the complainant online, which is blatant unauthorized use of the complainant's mark and is evidence that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name).

 

A prima facie case has been made and so the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating those rights or interests.  Absent a Response, the onus is not met and so the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant must prove on the balance of probabilities both that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and used in bad faith.  

 

Further guidance on that requirement is found in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, which sets out four circumstances, any one of which is taken to be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith if established. 

 

The four specified circumstances are:

 

(i)                      circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

 

(ii)                      the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

 

(iii)                      the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

 

(iv)                      by using the domain name, respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to respondent's website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent's website or location or of a product or service on the site or location.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent's conduct falls under paragraph 4(b)(iv). The Panel has found that the domain name to be confusingly similar to the trademark. The use of the domain name is for commercial gain by way of one fraudulent method or another. In terms of the Policy, the Panel finds that Respondent has used the disputed domain name to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to an online location by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of that location (see, for example, BBY Solutions, Inc. v.geeks squad, FA 1920588 (Forum, Dec. 14, 2020) finding bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy where respondent used the domain name to attempt to trick victims by creating a likelihood of confusion with complainant's mark, of either being the complainant or having an affiliation with the complainant).

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the third and final element of the Policy.

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <7eleven-tw.store> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Debrett G Lyons, Panelist

Dated: November 5, 2025